From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D0BC385840D for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9D0BC385840D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 9D0BC385840D Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1698232280; cv=none; b=X0byVRC+/TweYww3HhCW0DisZaFX7X2K4YlX3lHouRw4nPdvsiVYPXJoPDmkAbE6ovmuuLaSIi119xz4ZYGtfm8rx3OUFske9EJ3xknxlhv1duvnfM8IkOj3N1peOK3c7CkpzqAdWh0ZE/V2tcj8i0ve61QfrILhnXtdi45/cH4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1698232280; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P8COV9z2SE0Ixo/wNFDirqXa7nw+lRZjzwqzoflaIlQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=Hzvzv0B9YHQa6CJni4N2pXpLNHlreAx9+W2/ar5z6KSXzwRQnjf3KnTmBnKIl0PeAOdOa6k0IKlf70GUYOvoGQ30rSa9cl02S/846tzoW9udMXkwmPNdt3fTUpAoeRl3jTqSMA0+FJULPdG0WS1Xo4AD8N+u2PTORsuOCn5UDLw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 39PBAMwt022641; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:18 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=QjVdCVMdYnl1iTZs/5ltfSQzku4qJ17QGy4H87moV1w=; b=jfr/VCsQtaO8FYmSuCnf+JVfBb4Cmo6l/qdNFnpkDqqKGN5CpJY9CkM+ktZPzHtknJ6M iNcvnPVD896caPFbxW7DRQr12qZ/DT62x9CIoU4ASicfRp85aaABDm3D5pwx+thkbSoG L9zvcWI+eGaZU82jVZb9KqMgqNCsvyJbU2EB08GSek1MycCOIV+p9bW6lGXsJdIFnX16 l0Gi6uDeS17OfdHu21OcT8iwTUk5nQSnNKUTXAozonlX3pmfEuA3SRj2f6Xpkx1BF1XH vWZooxBGdPlLR2r3ryGQWSEcZ2vpXeH6u52xaurLdWgnE7ghVChzVTus5z/vkpMyLJir Qg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ty1wnr0wb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:18 +0000 Received: from m0353725.ppops.net (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 39PBAiN9023753; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:17 GMT Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ty1wnr0vn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:16 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 39P93nD0024397; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:16 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.74]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3tvu6k5rmr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:16 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.229]) by smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 39PBBFqR11403982 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:15 GMT Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465E158058; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B58F5805B; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.43.20.19] (unknown [9.43.20.19]) by smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:11:09 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7379c85b-178c-4196-a929-129052245165@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:41:07 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] ree: Improve ree pass for rs6000 target using defined ABI interfaces Content-Language: en-US To: Vineet Gupta , rep.dot.nop@gmail.com Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law , Richard Biener , Segher Boessenkool , Peter Bergner , gnu-toolchain References: <32ca6e0e-ef68-4d4d-b864-c586a688b2c7@linux.ibm.com> <22541c92-a967-4e66-96b3-e4ad5011cd24@rivosinc.com> <20231023161027.362c626b@nbbrfq.loc> <8da41716-1111-4550-95dd-de41a402101e@linux.ibm.com> <4077DE16-87DA-4DDE-B119-6B516944B632@gmail.com> From: Ajit Agarwal In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 4CvEpovKRRutDyM7Fa8MoUWLyl4y1nfV X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: d1fEwpuYeHXKh4VLCoXFn-U-wP6jcS79 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.980,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-10-25_01,2023-10-25_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310170001 definitions=main-2310250096 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 25/10/23 2:19 am, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 10/24/23 13:36, rep.dot.nop@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> As said, I don't see why the below was not cleaned up before the V1 submission. >>>>>> Iff it breaks when manually CSEing, I'm curious why? >>>> The function below looks identical in v12 of the patch. >>>> Why didn't you use common subexpressions? >>>> ba >>> Using CSE here breaks aarch64 regressions hence I have reverted it back >>> not to use CSE, >> Just for my own education, can you please paste your patch perusing common subexpressions and an assembly diff of the failing versus working aarch64 testcase, along how you configured that failing (cross-?)compiler and the command-line of a typical testcase that broke when manually CSEing the function below? > > I was meaning to ask this before, but what exactly is the CSE issue, manually or whatever. > Here is the abi interface where I CSE'D and got a mail from automated regressions run that aarch64 test fails. static inline bool abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (int regno) { if (targetm.calls.function_value_regno_p (regno)) return true; return false; } +static inline bool +abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (int regno) +{ + return targetm.calls.function_value_regno_p (regno); +} I have not done any assembly diff as myself have not cross compiled with aarch64. Reverting above CSE the tests passes with automatically regression runs and build with linaro. Linaro runs the tests with every patch we submit in gcc-patches and if there is any fail they report error. Reverting CSE the Linaro tests passes. Thanks & Regards Ajit > -Vineet